Thursday, 15 May 2014

Today at 12:30, the Speaker of the Folketing (The Danish parliament) delivered a speech to the Storting (the Norwegian parliament) in anticipation of the 200th anniversary of the Norwegian constitution on Saturday. Mogens Lykketoft is only the second foreign person to the Storting: the first was Winston Churchill.

(I am indebted to my Danish contact and friend Troels Just for this translation. and for much else besides over an extended period of time. Troels takes a keen and perceptive interest in European and Scottish affairs.)

Speech to the Storting on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the Norwegian constitution, Tuesday the 15th of May 2014.(translation by Troels Just.)

Congratulations for it, this week, being 200 years since 112 Norwegian men at Eidsvoll conceived and passed a constitution for the Norwegian people.

The Eidsvoll Constitution became Norway's letter of freedom.

The Constitution's founding idea of civil rights and popular elections set the course towards the modern democracy, and not just in Norway. Since then the rest of the Nordic countries set the same course, and in the most of Europe.

Preceding were 434 years of a common Danish-Norwegian realm.

Many of our common historical characters - such as, for example, Holberg and Tordenskjold - defined themselves neither as Norwegian or Danish. We were twins. We belonged together. But Norway was governed from Copenhagen by civil servants who were educated down there, no matter whether they were Danish or Norwegian by birth.

The absolutist central government did not secure for Norway real equality with Denmark.

Therefore, the thought of an independent Norway had long quietly resided in many Norwegian hearts. The thought flared up in full bloom when the Great Powers at the Peace of Kiel in January 1814 decided, that Norway were to be separated from Denmark to be with Sweden.

It says a lot about the cohesion between Danish and Norwegian that Norway - both during the struggle for the free constitution in 1814 and by the dissolution of the union in 1905 - chose a Danish prince as king.

Today - 200 years after our divorce - Danes and Norwegians have at least just as much in common as we did back then when we were a common realm. Our mutual relationship is far more equal. Yes, Norway has become the rich relative.

It is deeply anchored in the souls of our peoples that, that which comes from the sister country is OK. We hold no mutual mistrust and we make it a premise that the people of the sister country think, believe and act as we do ourselves. This immediate understanding, a stronger case of which is unlikely to be found between other nations in the world, is based on

that we so easily understand each other's speech,

that we are deeply shaped by the common history and culture,

that we socially, economically and politically has so much in common

and

that we trade a lot more between ourselves than with the rest of the world.

This community is not just something made up of Danes and Norwegians. It encompasses all of us in the Nordic countries, and it is not slowed down by Norway and Iceland being outside the EU, and Sweden and Finland being outside of NATO.

Since 1952 we have had the Nordic Council, and before the rest of Europe we developed the right to travel and work freely in our countries.

We are among the world's richest societies, and we have a shared agenda of welfare and sustainability. We are strong advocates of a commitment to international cooperation.

Together we are proportionally the world's biggest donor of humanitarian assistance and development projects.

We are at the forefront of international conflict resolution and we are furthering our cooperation also in areas of defence.

In the area of culture we have a lot of trans-national productions in the areas of motion picture, literature, music and art.

All of these examples underline the deep understanding between the peoples of the Nordic countries. With the events of 1814, the wild and warring years of our youth came to an end. The Nordic countries never again became an internal scene for war.

The last 200 years has certainly not been without challenges, but internally in the Nordic countries we have together created remarkably rich and strong societies. We will also in the future need Nordic cooperation to shape the international community. New agendas rapidly appear with strength. For example our common initiative in the Arctic area.

Norwegian democracy has over the past 200 years grown big, beautiful and strong.

In the middle of the unbelievable cruelty that hit the Norwegian people on the 22nd of July in 2011, the Norwegian democracy showed in unique and admirable ways to the world that, even the most horrible and evil impacts can be dealt with, so that the cohesion and sanity of soceity is strengthened.

Dear all Norwegian sisters and brothers:

It is with great joy and honour to be here today. Thanks yet again for the invitation to deliver the Folketing's and the Danish people's congratulations from the podium of the Storting to the Norwegian democracy and the Norwegian people.

Saturday, 4 August 2012

Here is a little problem for a class of undergraduates studying politics and international affairs, majoring in defence matters -

ON A PLANET NEAR YOU – A SCENARIO

A political party within a democratic nation state has a long-standing policy relating to a defence alliance, of fundamental relevance to the relationship that state has with other states. The political party is in a highly unusual situation - probably unique in world affairs - for the following reasons -

1. It is currently the party in a devolved government for one of the four component countries of that nation state.

2. It only exists as a party in that country and its raison d'être is to secure its independence from that nation state.

3. The long-standing defence alliance policy is not within its devolved powers, and is reserved to the nation state, which is a member of that defence alliance.

4. The political party forming the government of the component country of the nation state has scheduled a referendum in two years time to seek a mandate from that country’s electorate to negotiate with the nation state for its independence. The nation state is totally opposed to the independence of the component devolved country, but accepts that the referendum will determine the will of its people.

5. A general election for the government of the nation state will take place in May of the year following the referendum, a period of around six months. A devolved Parliamentary election for the country seeking independence will take place one year after that, a period of around 18 months from the referendum.

6. If the result of the referendum is a YES vote for the independence of the devolved country, complex negotiations will follow and are likely to last at least two years, and will therefore cover a period embracing two critical elections, either of which could result in a change of government.

7. The crucial issue, and potentially the most complex issue in these negotiations will be the defence issue. Central to that is the issue of nuclear weapons, and a policy to possess and use these weapons.

8. The nation state is a member of a defence alliance that includes in total 28 member countries, the dominant country in that alliance being one of the most powerful countries in the world, arguably the most powerful, although that dominance is being challenged.

9. The party that forms the government of the devolved country seeking independence from the nation state has a non-nuclear policy that it will implement if it secures its independence. The devolved country hosts the entire nuclear capacity of the nation state of which it is a component part and it is virtually certain that if it refuses to host that nuclear capacity - if and after it secures its independence - the nation state will lose its nuclear status, since it has no suitable place to host the nuclear weapons systems. It will therefore lose its place among the top three countries in the defence alliance who effectively control that alliance, and it is likely also to lose its place on the Security Council of the global body that has a major impact on world affairs, especially military affairs.

10. The party that forms the government of the devolved country – with an unchallengeable Parliamentary majority – has now proposed to its membership, through its strategic leadership with the de facto endorsement of its party leader, who is also First Minister of the government, a defence policy that reiterates its non-nuclear stance but intends to reverse its long-standing policy of opposition to membership of the nuclear alliance committed to the possession and use of nuclear weapons.

It now wishes to remain in – or join – that nuclear alliance, with the pre-condition that the nuclear weapons crucial to the nation state and significant to the defence alliance be removed from its country. It proposes to debate that policy change, together with its total defence policy, at its annual conference with delegates to that conference, and if the policy is endorsed, it will then constitute the entry position to the negotiations that will follow a YES vote in the referendum two years later.

The defence policy (already extant as a party conference paper) will be presented to the country’s electorate about a year later, together with comprehensive statements about every aspect of the position of the devolved government, as part of the campaign for a YES vote to independence a year after that.

QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS

Discuss the following in group session, then reach your conclusions and recommendations -

Consider the above scenario and the following facts -

the party of government of the devolved country will not face the electorate until after the referendum on independence

such a policy change is therefore unchallengeable by the electorate until after the referendum

it will therefore form the entry position on defence matters in the negotiation that follow a YES vote

the negotiations will have been underway for some 18 months – and may well be close to completion - before the devolved government faces the electorate

a general election will take place some six months after the referendum result and the start of the negotiations that could result in a change of government of the nation state and therefore the composition of the other side of the negotiating table

QUESTIONS

i) Is the defence alliance question a routine party policy matter, one only for delegates of that party to decide on?

ii) Is the defence policy a major or a minor matter in terms of significance to the electorate of the devolved country, or does it also have significance to the nation state, the members of the defence alliance and to world affairs?

iii) Is it it reasonable or democratic that such a crucial policy change be debated by a small number of delegates from one political party only, or should there be a wider consultation among the total electorate of the devolved country and in its devolved Parliament?

Friday, 3 August 2012

After the denial period by SNP supporters in the Spring of this year, when a NATO U-turn was something being got up by the wicked media – encouraged by me, apparently – and no senior party person was even considering it – so said the true believers - there was a period of quiet.

Then a press release from the SNP on the cost of Trident, emphasising the Party’s non-nuclear stance came out, and I loyally tweeted various facts from it. Maybe I should have recognised the danger signs – fifteen days later, the press began to speculate authoritatively about a U-turn on NATO, and on the 16th came the Angus Robertson/Angus MacNeill defence paper.

One recent comment perhaps sums up the nature of the opposition to my arguments against NATO membership and the SNP’s handling of it.

“Peter it is becoming increasingly clear that you would like to see a public debate with the SNP exercising no control or management of this issue - just as any organisation never mind a political party would do and has done throughout history?”

That captures almost exactly what I would like to see, and what the SNP and my critics seem determined not to have – an open debate involving the people of Scotland, as the SNP has been having with the big conversation, the referendum consultation, the same sex marriage consultation, etc. all in the name of open and transparent government.

But in the SNP’s scale of priorities, it matters more to find out what the people think about same sex marriage than whether a party that presents itself as a party of principle and adamantly anti-nuclear should do a volte face on its long-standing opposition to membership of a nuclear alliance, totally committed to the principle of nuclear deterrence and the possession and use of WMDs.

Why is this? Simply because the SNP, with entirely honourable motives, recognised that same sex marriage was a political hot potato, and if they intended to pursue legislation (as to their credit they have committed to do) they had to get a real idea of the view of the people.

But this clear and principled vision deserts them when it comes to something infinitely more important, the membership of a nuclear alliance in which an independent Scotland will be utterly powerless but jointly culpable when nuclear Armageddon is triggered by the big Three.

Instead, they try to stay low key on their true intentions for an extended period, stonewall the media, then slip out an announcement at the tail end of the Parliamentary term, with the firm intention of keeping the whole thing in house and under wraps until Conference in October.

Was there anything signalled in advance of the media statement to SNP branches and party members about the Robertson/MacNeil paper? Was there any suggestion to branches that they should make a point of debating this important question? Were the arguments for and against made available so that members could reached a balanced conclusion?

Any objective observer considering how these events have unfolded would come to the conclusion that the Party leadership and party managers want this paper to come to conference with the minimum of publicity, with the minimum of open debate, to then have a ‘debate’ in which the party leaders will throw their weight decisively behind the proposal - accompanied by ringing reaffirmation of the anti-nuclear policy - then secure a ratification of the U-turn. Cynicism? No, realism …

But let’s hear more of the pro-party position and pro-NATO comments – and they are not always the same the same group. Some who are opposed to NATO membership nonetheless defend the Party managers’ approach to the management of the issue and the vote.

THE COMMENTS

“I know you are pissed off that conference will probably endorse a policy with which you disagree but with which I suspect the majority of Scots will agree but you cannot seriously suggest that telling the members not to give succour to the enemy prematurely is undemocratic?”

“… it looks like the matter will be decided at the conference. … But that's the disadvantage of democracy. Sometimes the other side wins. And we do believe in democracy, right?”

“I am fairly rabidly anti-WMD, but I suppose I disagree with you in this. This IS something that should be debated and debated before the referendum campaign. It is the SNP's strength, not its weakness, that it can look at policies and bring them before their conference for open debate.”

“Peter, can you tell me why we can't be in NATO and still get rid of nuclear weapons? …. As far as I am concerned the vote at conference will be support NATO and ban nuclear weapons.”

“Nuclear weapons are of course an abomination but they are not going to go away. How can we as a small nation influence the defence(?) policy of such great powers as the USA, China, etc.? Let's face it, CND has lost the war.

Unfortunately, an independent Scotland will require military treaties. As a start, I believe a pragmatic alliance with NATO, within definitions that we, as far as possible, have determined to represent the view of the Scottish people is a good start. ….. If Scotland were to decide not to join NATO and go it alone, I wonder how long the removal and decommissioning of these foreign powers' weapons would take, if ever."

“I've kept more or less silent on the SNP policies that I have disagreed with Peter, just to avoid this kind of thing; the Judean Popular Front meltdown that will be leapt upon by the unionists.”

“I think Salmond was between a rock and a hard place on this one. Can he really afford to have the US actively fighting against Scottish independence? And the US has a long history of interfering in situations like this. Do you think they wouldn't if US interest are at risk? I think there is a substantial possibility that there is good reason for this decision. You get where I'm going with that, I am sure.

I don't like this and I don't like WMD in Scotland but as has been pointed out many times, Norway is in NATO and still remains nuclear-free. I see no reason why Scotland couldn't do the same.”

“I don't care much for NATO either way but sympathise with the SNP's Realpolitik situation. For independence to stand a chance, the SNP has to signal to the International Community, i.e. America that they can be relied upon as an ally. Otherwise independence would not happen due to tacit disapproval.”

“I hate saying this stuff because it sounds paranoid but the history of the CIA and the US government interfering in the internal affairs of foreign nations, including independence campaigns, is public record. … There is a clear history of US government interference to protect US interests. I am not at all sure this may not have influenced the SNP position.

I won't mention Norway after this, Peter, but I am not at all sure you have made your case that Scotland would be totally difference post-independence. …”

“I must say I'm completely at the other end of the spectrum on this. Although I'm a SNP member (a quite recent one in fact) I've always been a little cagey on their defence policy, and to me this is a welcome dose of pragmatism, or realism or whatever one wants to call it. Although I wouldn't want Scotland to be a holder of nuclear weapons - I think we should take our lead from a country like Norway (to use a well worn comparison) I've never been in favour of unilateral disarmament either. Honouring our treaty obligations whilst remaining a member of NATO, at least for the present, poses no difficulties for me.”

THE THREADS IN THE COMMENTS

In the above, and many other comments, including on YouTube and in private correspondence that I cannot quote, I tease out the following common points -

Accept the result of the democratic vote of Conference – don’t resign because a policy you disagree with is passed.

The SNP is adamantly anti-nuclear therefore it can safely be a member of NATO without compromising that principle.

An independent Scotland must be a member of a defensive alliance.

As a member, Scotland can positively influence NATO.

If we don’t join, America and NATO will intimidate us and threaten independence and the anti-nuclear policy.

We can be anti-nuclear and still be against unilateral nuclear disarmament and in favour of the deterrent until multi-lateral disarmament happens.

A majority of the Scottish electorate favour NATO membership, so joining will help a YES vote to independence.

Norway can manage to be anti-nuclear and yet be a NATO member – so can an independent Scotland.

This policy change is a matter for SNP internal party democracy and no one else.

RESPONSE

Since I have set out my arguments against an independent Scotland being a NATO member at considerable length - more than most media and online commentators - I really must rest my case unless new evidence or events lead me to add to it. I do reserve to right to revisit it and reiterate it constantly in the lead-up to the Perth October debate and vote. All of the above points I believe I have rebutted by argument, but them I would say that, wouldn’t I?

I have no evidence that I have changed a single opinion by my arguments, but I have evidence that I have offered a useful structuring of the arguments against NATO - and reference point to them - to those who were already against it – Professor Mitchell’s22% of the SNP by 2007 sample. I hope that number has grown, but it may well have shrunk in the five years since the sample.

However, in my replies to various correspondents recently I made some new responses which I think might be relevant -

“There is a democratic world out there beyond the SNP called the Scottish electorate, or if you like, the people of Scotland, which the SNP Government says they want a dialogue with in the spirit of open government - except when it is a hot potato like this one.

This vital issue is not one to have kept within the confines of the party, and the party has not behaved well over this. So far there has been no debate of any kind on this at my branch, nor has there been any level or forum SNP forum in which I (also an SNP member - for the moment) have been able to debate it so far. However, there is a forum, the NO to NATO Coalition, and I will be saying my piece there.”

“The Party brought this on themselves - they were less than honest in their lead up to this, they have tried to avoid discussing it, and have displayed a lack of openness and transparency on the issue in the hope of sliding it through painlessly at conference, which has been self-defeating, as it inevitably was going to be. I cannot accept that issues of this importance should be suppressed in the interests of closing ranks. The responsibility for 'playing into the hands of the unionists' lies squarely with the party managers.

There is something called democratic accountability to the electorate. The SNP governs for all the people of Scotland, not just SNP party members, who are a tiny proportion, and party delegates, who are a tinier proportion.

This is not open government as I understand it, it is rather sordid and manipulative party politics of a type I had hoped the SNP was above, and on a fundamental issue. The fact that most party members don't seem to regard NATO membership as a fundamental issue I find deeply depressing.

In the event of a YES vote in 2014 - if we now get one after this misconceived initiative - negotiations will be either completed or close to completion before the 2016 Holyrood election. What the present devolved SNP Government wants is endorsement of their negotiating position for those negotiations intended to lead to full independence. The idea that any non-SNP government or SNP/Labour Coalition after 2016 can unwind such a key concession is naive.”

“The matter will be decided at the October conference. There is little reason to think that the majority are opposed - all the polls and my own, albeit limited range of respondees would indicate the reverse.

There are those in the Parliamentary Party who are opposed, but some of them have effectively been muted, and are strangely - and perhaps contemptibly - silent.

I believe in democracy. I also believe that I have a perfect right not to belong to a political party that espouses something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong - and dangerous. Being a party member and supporting a party electorally and financially on a least worst option at the ballot box are very different things, however.

Since I believe that citizens must vote, I have throughout my life supported parties that I was not fully in tune with as the least worst option, e.g. the Labour Party.

For five years I have supported the SNP as a best option, a party that fulfilled all my fundamental beliefs. I regret that is no longer true (short of a miraculous revolt against NATO policy in October!)

But I will still vote SNP at by-elections until the referendum outcome is known. Come 2015 general election (UK) and 2016 (Holyrood election), perhaps for a newly independent Scotland - who knows?”

“Undoubtedly it should be debated - and it will be. Whether it can be categorised as open is another matter. It's backed by the party's strategist and defence spokesman, Angus Robertson. It's backed by Alex Salmond, the party's Superman. Dissenting voices are few, and muted (or being muted!) The party leadership simply can't afford to lose this vote, and they won't.

The party is in "Let's avoid dissent on everything until after independence - then everything will be alright" mood. But it won't be. There is a growing blandness in the party's approach and what they risk is not the loss of core activists campaigning and voting for YES (like me, in or out of party), but the increasing body of the uncommitted saying "So if so little will be different after independence, why not stay in the UK?" Without their votes, there will be no independence.

If the party votes to join/stay in NATO, I might see independence in my lifetime, but I will never see a nuclear-free Scotland. Trident decommissioning and removal will be at least 10 years away, perhaps 20 - and that means never – it will disappear into very long, polluted NATO/rUK grass.

I will be looking for a realignment on the Scottish Left (there is no such party - yet ...)”

“The SNP is a democratic party, with a branch structure and nomination and voting procedures. I have little doubt that the majority of active members, including apparently most MSPs and ministers, are either in support of their NATO posture, or apathetic. For those who oppose it and are silent, I have only contempt to offer.

I am one voter, one party member and one voice, nothing more. I am against NATO membership, and I can never be a member of a political party that supports membership, however tortuous and self-serving - and maybe self-deluding - the justifications offered.

Come a YES vote to NATO in October and I'm out.”

“Trying to curry favour by offering to stay in NATO if the UK removes Trident is hardly going to work. Offering to stay in NATO then delaying the decommissioning of Trident indefinitely might work, but then the SNP would be as bad as what Scots are trying to rid themselves of.

I have never tried to make a case that Scotland would be totally different after independence. Most Scots want to preserve its traditions, its values, its relationship with the other nations that currently comprise the UK, its unique culture, its tolerance and the proud traditions of its regiments and fighting forces.”

“Will the devo max option cause those who would vote indy on single question to bottle it and settle for devo max and those who would reject indy vote devo max.?

It all depends on how the questions and the ballot paper(s) are structured. I've been over this in depth in blogs, but nobody seems to want to do the hard thinking, and much utter nonsense has been talked about the questions, the voting outcomes, etc.

The critical element will be the likely high turnout vs normal election - anywhere from an 80-90% turnout with more than 50% of the total turnout being people who don't usually vote - the silent group that everyone wants to claim as their own.”